^{page 113 note 2} The two latest books on the subject have good bibliographies: Betz, O., Der Paraklet (Leiden, 1963)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Miguéns, M., El Paráclito (Jerusalem, 1963).Google Scholar Besides the studies mentioned in the footnotes below, the following are worthy of note: Haes, P. de, ‘Doctrina S. Joannis de Spiritu Sancto’, Collectanea Mechliniensia, XXIX (1959), 521–6;Google Scholar; J. Giblet, ‘De missione Spiritus Paracliti secundum Joa. xvi. 5–15’, Ibid. XXI (1952), 253–4; Schlier, H., ‘Zum Begriff des Geistes nach dem Johannesevangelium’, Besinnung auf das Neue Testament (Freiburg i. B., 1964), 264–71.Google Scholar

^{page 113 note 3} John, xiv. 15–17, 26Google Scholar; xv. 26–7; xvi. 7–11, 13–14.

^{page 113 note 4} Spitta, F., Delafosse, H., Windisch, H., Sasse, H., Bultmann, R., Betz, O.. The Paraclete is identified with the Holy Spirit in xiv. 26Google Scholar; and so if there was a confusion of two different figures, it goes back at least to the final edition of the Gospel. For the identification in early Church writing see Shepherd of Herman, Mandate iii. 4Google Scholar compared with v. 1–2. The basic difficulty about the identification is that in the New Testament the Spirit (sometimes) appears as a force that God gives to men, while the Paraclete is presented as a person sent to men (so Windisch). In the Fourth Gospel itself the functions of the Paraclete are not prima facie the same as those assigned to the Spirit, for example, begetting from above (iii. 5, in a baptismal context); the source of life (vii. 38–9); a creative force (xx. 22).

^{page 114 note 1} This is the more probable translation, but the may also be rendered: ‘The Father will give you another, a Paraclete’, thus removing any suggestion of a prior Paraclete. Compare the construction in Luke, xxiii. 32Google Scholar which means ‘two others, malefactors’, not ‘two other malefactors’. However, as Behm, J., ‘Παρκλητος’, T.W.N.T. v, 799Google Scholar objects, such a pleonastic use of λλος is not typical Johannine style.

^{page 114 note 2} To some extent this is ignotum per ignotius, for ‘Spirit of Truth’ occurs only here in the Bible. We shall discuss the Qumrân usage below.

^{page 114 note 3} ‘Holy’ is omitted in the Old Syriac (Sin).

^{page 114 note 4} Windisch, H., ‘Die fünf johanneischen Parakletsprüche’, Festgabe für A. Jülicher (Tübingen, 1927), pp. 110–37Google Scholar, was a strong proponent of this thesis. He maintained that the Evangelist added the passages from a pre-Christian source (p. 123). Miguens, op. cit. pp. 27–44Google Scholar, discusses the passages individually and seeks to prove that they are not additions but fit in nicely with their context.

^{page 114 note 5} For the difficulties inherent in this theory see Brown, R. E., The Gospel according to John, I–XII (Anchor Bible; New York, 1966), pp. xxvi–xxviii.10.5040/9780300261967CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 115 note 1} Both begin with the theme of Jesus' imminent departure, the sorrow of the disciples (cf. xvi. 6), and his reassuring the disciples. Then (xiv. 4–5; xvi. 5) there arises the question of where he is going. Each unit has two sections on the Paraclete (xiv. 15–17 and 26; xvi. 7–11 and 13–14); each has a section that promises the disciples that they will see Jesus again in a little while (xiv. 19–21; xvi. 16–22); and each has a section promising intimacy with the Father (xiv. 23–4; xvi. 26–7). Also compare xiv. 13–14 with xvi. 22–4. For the thesis that the Fourth Gospel frequently contains duplicate discourses and that this duplication may be explained by a process of editing, see Brown, , op. cit. pp. xxv, xxxvii.Google Scholar We suggest that the final editor or redactor added to the form of the Gospel which came from the hands of the Evangelist other Johannine material (often material stemming from the Evangelist himself that he had not included in his first edition). Some of these additions represent a duplication, with slight differences, of material already in the Gospel.

^{page 115 note 2} In particular, it should be noted that the first passage in xiv (15–17) treats of the Paraclete's opposition to the world, just as the first passage in xvi (7–11) does. The second passage in each chapter (xiv. 26; xvi. 13–14) is concerned with the Paraclete's teaching or guiding the disciples and his power to recall what Jesus had said. The fact that the Father gives and sends the Paraclete in xiv, while Jesus sends the Paraclete in xvi. 7, has suggested to some that xiv represents the earlier form of the discourse; but the parallelism of xv. 26 where both the Father and Jesus are active in the coming of the Paraclete impels caution.

^{page 115 note 3} Op. Cit. pp. 137 ff.Google Scholar The words include ‘witness’; ‘interpreter or mediator’; ‘teacher’; ‘a man with insight’; ‘corrector’; ‘consoler’.

^{page 115 note 4} For example, in Pirke Aboth iv. 11.Google Scholar A frequent synonym is advocate’). In Judaism has the sense of intercessor, and the rabbinic texts consistently use it for those who intercede for men before the tribunal of God, for example angels, the Law, good works. See Behm, , art. cit. p. 809Google Scholar, lines 20–35. As for the usage of Greek-speaking Jews, παρκλητος occurs only once in Aquila and in Theodotion (in the plural in Job xvi. 2 to translate : ‘miserable comforters are you all’). Philo uses παρκλητος for conscience and for various other factors that will be advocates before the Father. Josephus uses the word only in composite nouns.

^{page 116 note 1} In his Hebrew New Testament Franz Delitzsch uses in the Gospel and in the Epistle.

^{page 116 note 2} One of the Old Latin renditions, advocates, is a literal translation of this sense. Tertullian, , De jejunio, 13Google Scholar: ‘Paracletus, id est advocatus ad exorandum judicem.’ This understanding lies behind the frequent English translation of the title as ‘advocate’ ( 1941 Catholic Confraternity; Westminster; Rieu, E. V.; N.E.B.Google Scholar) and perhaps also behind the R.S.V. translation as ‘counsellor’.

^{page 116 note 3} Miguéns, , op. cit.Google Scholar, bases his whole treatment of the Paraclete on this approach. Actually the context of the Paraclete passages indicates that the disciples will face persecution (xv. 18–25; xvi. 2–3, 32; xvii. 15), but we cannot assume that the Paraclete will defend them before the world. Rather his function toward the disciples in such hard times is one of internal strengthening.

^{page 116 note 4} Vaux, R. de, Ancient Israel (London, 1961), p. 156Google Scholar; Betz, , op. cit. p. 36.Google Scholar

^{page 117 note 1} Obviously it is a short semantic step from the idea of being called in to help to the idea of pleading for someone. The majority of Greek Fathers seem to have understood the Paraclete as an intercessor (although some translate the term as ‘consoler’); cf. Miguéns, , op. cit. pp. 213 ff.Google Scholar The Holy Spirit is clearly an intercessor in Rom, . viii. 26.Google Scholar

^{page 117 note 2} Berrouard, M.-F., ‘Le Paraclet, défenseur du Christ devant la conscience du croyant (Jean xvi. 8–11)’, R.S.P. T. XXXIII (1949), 361–89Google Scholar, has shown convincingly that xv. 26 (the Paraclete will bear witness) and xv. 27 (the disciples should bear witness) do not refer to two distinct actions.

^{page 117 note 3} ‘Helper’ in the Twentieth Century Translation, Moffatt, Goodspeed; ‘Friend’ in Williams, C. K.; ‘one to befriend you’ in Knox. This translation has also been favoured by those who postulate a proto-Mandaean source for John:Google ScholarBauer, W., Das Johannesevangelium (H.N.T.; Tübingen, 1933; 3rd ed.), pp. 182 ff.Google Scholar; Bultmann, R., Das Evangelium des Johannes (Meyer Komm.; Göttingen, 1959; 16th ed.), pp. 437 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 117 note 4} This is reflected in the Old Latin consolator, the Tröster of Luther, and the ‘Comforter’ of Wycliffe, A.V., and Spencer translations.

^{page 117 note 5} ‘The Primary Meaning of ΠAPAKAHTOΣ’, J.T.S. IV (1953), 35–8.Google Scholar The verb παρακαλειν occurs 138 times in the LXX; in 61 of the 78 times where it has a Hebrew equivalent, that equivalent is from the root , ‘to console’. Admittedly, παρκλητος itself is not used in the LXX, but the single occurrence in Aquila and in Theodotion (Job xvi. 2) is as ‘consoler’. Miguéns, , op. cit. pp. 259–64Google Scholar, argues that that the piel participial form had taken on the aspect of a title with different signification according to the situation, for example helper, consoler, one who functions as an advocate.

^{page 118 note 1} A good study of the relation of paraclesis and the Spirit is Lemonnyer's, A. ‘L'Esprit-Saint Paraclet’, R.S.P. T. XVI (1927), 293–307.Google Scholar Interesting examples of the use of φαρκλησıς are I Thess, . iii. 2Google Scholar; Rom, . xii. 8Google Scholar; Heb, . xiii. 22Google Scholar; Acts xiii. 15. Acts ii. 40, where Peter bears witness and exhorts (φαρακαλείν), is interesting in the light of John, xv. 26Google Scholar where the Paraclete bears witness.

^{page 118 note 2} ‘The Holy Spirit in the Fourth Gospel’, J.T.S. I (1950), 1–15Google Scholar, especially 12–14.

^{page 118 note 3} ‘Die johanneische Parakletsprüche and die apostolische Tradition’, B.Z. v (1961), 56–70.Google Scholar

^{page 119 note 1} Old Syriac (Cur), Peshitta, Philoxenian (even for I John), Sahidic, and Bohairic (also for I John).

^{page 119 note 2} Gerard Manley Hopkins, so sensitive to the exactness of language, caught this truth in a sermon on John, xvi. 5–14Google Scholar given in Liverpool on the Fourth Sunday after Easter: ‘What then is a Paraclete? Often the word is translated “Comforter”, but a Paraclete does more than comfort. The word is Greek; there is no one English word for it and no one Latin word.’

^{page 119 note 3} Or ‘friend’—a derivative from Persian jâr, ‘friend’; so also Brand, W., Lidzbarski, M..Google Scholar

^{page 119 note 4} The Johannine picture of Jesus himself, in Bultmann's thesis, is influenced by the Mandaean portrait of the principal heavenly revealer, Manda d'Hayye. To support the thesis that the Paraclete belongs to a series of heavenly revealers much stress is placed on the phrase ‘another Paraclete’ of John, xiv. 16.Google Scholar

^{page 119 note 5} ‘Zur Herkunft des johanneischen Paraklet-Titels’, Coniectanea Neotestamentica, XI (1947—Fridrichsen Festschrift), 147–62.Google Scholar In our estimation Michaelis is wrong in making too much of the alternative translation of xiv. 16, mentioned above in n. I, p. 114. As we shall see below, one can hold that the Spirit is another Paraclete, following Jesus, the first Paraclete, without giving any confirmation to the thesis of Mandaean borrowing.

^{page 119 note 6} Art. cit. pp. 805–7.Google Scholar

^{page 120 note 1} The Secret Adam (Oxford, 1960), 62–3.Google Scholar Also The Canonical Prayer Book of the Mandaeans, pp. 252–3.Google Scholar She takes as a peal participle active of the root (cf. Hebrew ).

^{page 120 note 2} ‘Die Vorstellungen des Spätjudentums vom heiligen Geist als Fürsprecher and der johanneische Paraklet’, Z.N.W. XXXII (1933), 97–130.Google Scholar

^{page 120 note 3} Parakletoi (Lund, 1940).Google Scholar Another suggestion of Hebrew background for the Paraclete is that of Vawter, B., ‘Ezekiel and John’, C.B.Q. xxv (1964), 455–8Google Scholar, namely, Ezekiel's conception of the prophetic office.

^{page 120 note 4} The Ancient Library of Qumran (revised ed.; New York, 1961), pp. 213–15.Google Scholar

^{page 120 note 5} One may add the pattern of Moses/the Prophet-like-Moses, in the light of the late Jewish understanding of Deut. xviii. 15. Note that the Prophet-like-Moses will speak in God's name and speak all that God has commanded him—a description with similarities to John, xvi. 13–14.Google Scholar Cf. Bornkamm, G., ‘Der Paraklet an Johannesevangelium’, Festschrift für R. Bultmann (Stuttgart, 1949), 18–20Google Scholar; Betz, , op. cit. pp. 128–30.Google Scholar

^{page 120 note 6} Art. cit. pp. 13–16. If one objects that here the second figure is the greater, we must remember that the Fourth Gospel had to argue to prove that point, since the earlier figure should have been greater ( John, i. 15, 30Google Scholar). Betz, , op. cit. p. 137Google Scholar, points out that the Baptist is a witness to Jesus beforehand (i. 15Google Scholar), while the Paraclete is a witness to Jesus afterward. Bornkamm, , art. cit. pp. 20–5Google Scholar, also insists on the relationship of the concept of the Son of Man to the Paraclete concept; this is less convincing.

^{page 120 note 7} At Qumrân this idea persists, for those elected by God are said to have been made known by ‘those anointed by His holy spirit and the seers of His truth’ (C.D. ii. 12–13).

^{page 121 note 1} In the late Jewish understanding of prophet the idea of prediction of the future became more prominent, as we see in the Qumrân pesher approach to the prophets; and of course prediction was important in the early days of prophecy (Samuel). This predictive aspect of prophecy seems to be echoed in Christian circles in the charismatics called ‘prophets’, although these ‘prophets’ had other gifts as well. What is said above about the gift of God's spirit to the prophet/apostle is not unrelated to the idea mentioned in A where in the tandem relationship the main figure passes on his spirit to the secondary figure, since the main figure (Moses, Elijah) got his spiritual impetus from God. Notice also that prophets are involved in the tandem relationship: Moses (understood as a prophet in later Jewish thought), Elijah, Elisha, the Prophet-like-Moses, John the Baptist, and Jesus himself.

^{page 121 note 2} For example, Dan. (Greek of Theodotion) ii. 2, 4, 7, 9, etc. This point is developed by I. Potterie, de la, ‘Le Paraclet’, La vie selon l'Esprit (Paris, 1965), pp. 95–6.Google Scholar

^{page 121 note 3} Robinson, H. W., ‘The Council of Yahweh’, J.T.S. XLV (1944), 151–7Google Scholar; Cross, F. M., ‘The Council of Yahweh in Second Isaiah’, J.N.E.S. XII (1953), 274–7.Google Scholar

^{page 122 note 1} Job xxxiii. 23: . Often is suggested as the Hebrew term translated by παρκλητος.

^{page 122 note 2} Job xvi. 19; this description is interesting since the Paraclete is one who bears witness (xv. 26).

^{page 122 note 3} Job. xix. 25–7, if we have understood correctly this difficult verse. Note the parallel to the Paraclete who after Jesus' death comes to earth to prove the justice of Jesus' case.

^{page 122 note 4} The origins of the Testaments are disputed, but it is not unlikely that at least parts of the Testaments were of Qumrân sectarian origin. Preiss, T., Life in Christ (London, 1954), p. 20Google Scholar, points out that there are several parallels between the description in T. Judah of the spirit of truth (seemingly both personal and impersonal) that haunts man and the description in John of the Paraclete, for instance the functions of bearing witness and accusing.

^{page 122 note 5} Betz, , op. cit. pp. 147 ff.Google Scholar, gives much attention to the problem of whether or not the Spirit of Truth is identified with Michael in QS. He holds that the two seem to be distinct but are well on the road toward identification. On p. 156 he observes that they may be two different sides of the one coin. We would rather say that in QS the term ‘spirit of truth’ has both personal and impersonal application; when it is used of a personal being, then the Spirit of Truth is Michael. See the excellent treatment in Ringgren, H., The Faith of Qumran (Philadelphia, 1963), pp. 68 ff.Google Scholar It is interesting that T. Benjamin puts ‘Spirit of Falsehood’ and Belial in apposition, just as John puts Paraclete and ‘Spirit of Truth’ in apposition.

^{page 123 note 1} Similarly, if the prophetic spirit is given to men that they may understand, Jubilees iv. 15 describes the angels of the Lord descending on earth to instruct men.

^{page 123 note 2} For treatments of the complex concept of spirit at Qumrân see Coppens, J., ‘Le don de l'esprit d'après les textes de Qumrân et le quatrième évangile’, L'évangile de Jean (Recherches Bibliques III; Louvain, 1958), pp. 209–23Google Scholar; Nötscher, F., ‘Geist and Geister in den Texten von Qumran’, Mélanges Bibliques rédigés en l'honneur de André Robert (Paris, 1957), pp. 305–15.Google Scholar Coppens treats the spirit only in relation to the community and is obviously apprehensive of the danger that Qumrân anticipated a Christian (Trinitarian) concept of the hypostatized Spirit of God (of course, it did not). Nötscher more objectively recognizes the Quamrân tendency to personalize the spirit.

^{page 124 note 1} While there is seemingly no instance of this loan-word being used to describe the spirit, the synonymous (n. 4, p. 115 above) is used in rabbinic writings to characterize the spirit, asking God for grace for the people and warning Israel to obey God; it is also used of Michael. See Behm, , art. cit. p. 809Google Scholar, lines 20–35.

^{page 124 note 2} Betz, , op. cit. p. 159Google Scholar, mentions another argument that has been used to bolster this over-simplified distinction, namely, the contention that the verbs that John uses in relation to the Paraclete betray a conflation of ideas. The Paraclete is given and received (λαμβνεıν) in the manner of a spiritual force in xiv. 16–17, but the Paraclete is sent and comes in the manner of a person in xiv. 26; xv. 26; xvi. 7–8, 13. The argument is invalid; for Jesus, who is clearly a person, is also given (iii. 16) and received (v. 43), without the slightest loss of personality.

^{page 124 note 3} In speaking of a personal concept of the Spirit in the New Testament, we take for granted the understanding that there was also a development from the New Testament concept to that of the fourth century when it was defined that the Spirit is the Third Person of the Trinity.

^{page 124 note 4} Probably the idea of possession whereby evil personalized spirits could enter and dwell in a man helped to develop the idea that the holy spirit that God gives to a man might also have personal characteristics.

^{page 124 note 5} The well-known triadic passages in Paul would be an example especially where they attribute voluntary actions to the Spirit, for example, I Cor. xii. 11, ‘The same Spirit who apportions to each one individually as he wills’; Rom, . viii. 16Google Scholar, ‘It is the Spirit himself bearing witness’.

^{page 124 note 6} Έκεινος in xiv. 26; xv. 26; xvi. 8, 14; αὐτòς in xvi. 7.

^{page 125 note 1} If we have insisted above that such passages cannot be used to explain what John means by the Paraclete, they can be used to show that the forensic aspect of the Spirit is not unknown.

^{page 125 note 2} See Lofthouse, W. F., ‘The Holy Spirit in the Acts and the Fourth Gospel’, Exp. Times, LII (1940–1941), 334–6.Google Scholar This author makes the interesting suggestion that Luke may have shared with John the tradition of a promise of the Spirit at the Last Supper, whence the enigmatic reference in Acts i. 4.

^{page 125 note 3} Op. cit. pp. 149 ff.Google Scholar Betz's thought on this matter is not simple, and we hope that we do not distort it. If he has a strong emphasis in the direction described above (for example, p. 156), he has lines that recognize that the amalgamation of the angelic and the Holy Spirit may have been pre-Johannine.

^{page 125 note 4} Ibid. p. 154, where he says that while Revelation gives the basic figure his personal name (Michael), the Gospel gives him his title (Paraclete). We see no basis for this. Among the Gospels John shows the least interest in angelology (the author does believe in angels as subordinate to Jesus: i. 51); and the theory that conscious angelology heavily influenced the portrait of the Paraclete, a figure so like Jesus, would require very definite proof. If the author of Revelation and the Evangelist are from the same general Johannine school of thought, then we would suspect that the Evangelist's attitude toward Michael's role would have been roughly the same as that of the author of Revelation, namely, that Michael would assist Jesus at the time of the second coming, but this would have nothing to do with the role of the Paraclete who takes Jesus' place between the resurrection/ascension and the second coming. (As will be seen below, while we recognize that the Evangelist does not feel the immediacy of the second coming and is more interested in a type of realized eschatology, there is no reason to think that he had lost faith in the second coming.)

^{page 126 note 1} Brown, R. E., ‘The Qumrân Scrolls and the Johannine Gospel and Epistles’, C.B.Q. XVII (1955), 403–19, 559–74Google Scholar; also in Brown, , New Testament Essays (Milwaukee/London, 1965), pp. 102–31.Google Scholar There are no citations or near-citations of Qumrân works in John.

^{page 126 note 2} The incorporation into christology of features and prerogatives that Judaism attributed to angels (not the least of which was the designation ‘son of God’) is a phenomenon apparent in many New Testament books, for example Hebrews, Colossians; it was probably a common Christian attitude.

^{page 127 note 1} In which stage of his career was Jesus the first Paraclete? Miguéns, op. cit. p. 158 n.Google Scholar, argues that Jesus was a Paraclete in heaven after the resurrection. He supports this by I John and also by the context given to the Paraclete passages by the last discourse where Jesus is going to the Father. However, we shall see that the career of the Paraclete is paralleled in every detail by the earthly ministry of Jesus; this second Paraclete does what Jesus did on earth (teaching, bearing witness, proving the world wrong) and does not imitate the intercession of Jesus in heaven. Thus it seems that Jesus was the first Paraclete in his earthly ministry.

^{page 127 note 2} During his ministry men could see Jesus, and his ministry was visible in a way that the Paraclete's ministry is not.

^{page 128 note 1} The resemblance of the Paraclete to Jesus is so close that in the early part of this century E. F. Scott maintained that the Paraclete was to be identified with the risen and eternal Christ, and that John was correcting the Pauline view that the Holy Spirit was different from Jesus. Simpson, Ian, ‘The Holy Spirit in the Fourth Gospel’, The Expositor, 9th series, IV (1925), 292–9Google Scholar, supported Scott's contention and explained that those passages in John that reflect distinction between Jesus and the Paraclete are merely John's way of saying that the Paraclete is Jesus present in another form. This theory does too much violence to the Johannine presentation; the patent thrust of the Paraclete passages is that the Paraclete and the risen Jesus have distinct roles in that Jesus will be above with the Father while the Paraclete continues the work on earth.

^{page 128 note 2} The two sets of statements, one speaking of Jesus' presence with the disciples, the other speaking of the Paraclete's presence, may reflect different formulations of the same material, stemming from different periods or layers within the formation of the Johannine tradition. As these statements are put together within the same written Gospel, however, they offer the possibility of the interpretation given above, the interpretation which, in our opinion, represents the final development of Johannine theology. In stating that Jesus' promise was fulfilled in the Paraclete, we do not wish to exclude the possibility that, even in the final form of Johannine thought, some of Jesus' words about his return to his disciples may refer to his coming at the end of time, because a belief in the return of Jesus in and through the Paraclete and a belief in the parousia seem to have coexisted in Johannine thought.

^{page 128 note 3} We reject the Bultmannian thesis that the Evangelist was anti-sacramental or, at least, non-sacramental in his outlook, but neither do we accept the ultra-sacramentalism visible in the interpretations of O. Cullmann and others; cf. Brown, R. E., ‘The Johannine Sacramentary Reconsidered’, Theological Studies, XXIII (1962), 183–20610.1177/004056396202300201CrossRefGoogle Scholar; also in Brown, , New Testament Essays, pp. 51–76.Google Scholar

^{page 129 note 1} II Peter, iii. 4Google Scholar is another witness of how the passing of the apostolic generation produced scepticism and discouragement. If one dates this work (presumably deuteropetrine or pseudopetrine) to the period 90–120, it may reflect an era not far removed from that which saw the final editing of John.

^{page 129 note 2} The addition of the last chapter was presumably part of the final editing of the Gospel. While the chapter was not composed by the author of the rest of the Gospel, it reflects themes and style characteristic of the Johannine school of thought.

^{page 130 note 1} Art. Cit. pp. 67–70.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 2} We presume the critical understanding of apostle as a much wider category than the Twelve, including all the eyewitnesses of the resurrected Jesus commissioned to preach him.

^{page 130 note 3} In Roman Catholic theological vocabulary this is recognized in the concept of the sensus fidelium. At times the official teachers of the Church draw their surety about doctrine from the understanding of revelation attested by those who are to be taught, and thus the faithful lead the teachers.

^{page 130 note 4} This statement, when properly understood, does not obviate a special role or office of teacher; this is illustrated by the very writing of the epistle: the author himself is exercising the role of teacher (‘Whoever knows God listens to us’: I John, iv. 6Google Scholar). If the ‘anointing’ by the Holy One involves the presence of the Holy Spirit, as many exegetes think, then I John in this passage is attributing to the Spirit the same internal teaching function that the Gospel attributes to the Paraclete-another indication that under the title of Paraclete, the Evangelist is only highlighting and isolating certain functions which the Spirit was thought to possess.

^{page 130 note 5} Bultmann's position that all the references to final eschatology in the Gospel are to be attributed to the Ecclesiastical Redactor who was correcting the Evangelist's radical theology is very difficult to justify. The most careful study of Bultmann's theory, Smith's, D. M.The Composition and Order of the Fourth Gospel (New Haven, 1965Google Scholar), repeatedly shows how arbitrary is the process of consistently rejecting such references as secondary.

^{page 131 note 1} Art. cit. pp. 1–5.

^{page 131 note 2} Of course, persecution could fan it to life again, as we see in the Book of Revelation.

^{page 131 note 3} We disagree with Betz, (op. cit. pp. 149–50Google Scholar) who thinks that the parousia and the coming of the Paraclete go together, just as the coming of Christ and that of the angel Michael go together in Rev. xix. 11–XX. 10.

^{page 131 note 4} The Paraclete is truly a ‘Comforter’ as seen in xiv. 18: ‘I shall not leave you orphans; I am coming back to you.’

^{page 132 note 1} Bornkamm, , art. cit. p. 26Google Scholar, points out that the concept of the Paraclete serves to demythologize apocalyptic motifs; world judgement is an instance of this. Berrouard, , art. cit. pp. 9–11Google Scholar, gives a magnificent analysis of the difficult passage in xvi. 8–11. If the Paraclete proves the world wrong, the proof is primarily directed to the disciples in times of doubt, for the Paraclete is given to them and cannot be seen by the world. The proof consists in explaining the true outcome of Jesus' death. Although apparently he was condemned as a malefactor, the real sin was and is on the part of those who refuse to believe in him. Justice was truly done; yet this justice was not in his death at the hands of men but in his return to his Father in glory. And his adversary, the Prince of this world, who seemed victorious over Jesus was actually destroyed by Jesus' death which led to life for all. See also Betz, , op. cit. pp. 106 if.Google Scholar on the verb έλέγχεıν ‘to prove wrong’.